This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have just studied the Wiki page on the Government Office for Science but found I was rapidly lost in a sea of terminology, the most perplexing of which was the term "cross cutting issues". I have no idea as to what is meant here and hope this can be put into better English, noting in particular that the use of hyperbole and metaphor can make text incomprehensible to non native English readers. 192.16.186.71 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of driving offences, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

With another round of local elections now just four months away, is anyone interested in (or already) working on scripts to pull in candidate lists and results from local authority pages which use Open Election Data, as described on the OpenElectionData project website? I'm in touch with the people behind that project, and would be willing to act as a go-between. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The above FPC nomination has not received much attention- comments either way are appreciated, hopefully we can get a clear consensus. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at Solihull Council election, 2010. A series of ip's have been making edits to the page that I think are wrong. I have made some comments on the talk page, but the ip's just keep reverting me without any discussion and I don't want to be accused of edit warring. I would appreciate another editor(s) taking a look at the disagreement and giving their opinion. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've started an article about Project Merlin and plan to expand it over the next few days, but I'm by no means an exxpert on this subject, so if anyone else who is more familiar with banking, economics, etc, can help that would be fantastic. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm interested in this. I will look over it Pi (Talk to me! ) 07:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I think some of the articles in the project need recategorising for importance and quality. Can someone help me as to how this is done? I am keen to do it, but I don't know what procedures you follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi (talk • contribs) 07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pi! You're very right that the articles need to be reassessed (or even assessed to begin with!) For an overview of how to go about doing this please have a read of the Project's Assessment page. As a suggestion a good place to start might be to click on the (at the moment) 5,739 number in the list, which represents all the articles that haven't been assessed for both quality or importance - and work through this list, assessing them as appropriate (and hopefully reducing this number). I'll have a go at helping you as well. If you have any other questions please ask me. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Basically I wanted to know whether I should just start tagging articles or whether you do it by a group decision. I'll make a start Pi (Talk to me! ) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interested in assisting with the Good Article nomination of Tony Blair. The review can be found at Talk:Tony Blair/GA1. GA is reachable, but it will require hard work. Any assistance would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom Census 2011 is topical at the moment. Obviously it will be a while before the results start to become available (particularly the detail down to parish or ward level) but is there a coherent plan anywhere of how the thousands of affected articles on wikipedia will be updated with the new data, perhaps involving county or regional wikiprojects, or is this left to ad hoc editing?— Rod ^talk 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair play for being interested in the long-term Rod :) I agree - we need to be prepared. My interest is constituency results and the like, and for most of the year editors like me are primed for May being the month of all action, and the period between March and July being packed with updates and catch-ups. As for specific post-Census date, we're going to have to wait (obviously) for 2012 and the first info to come out. I suspect there will be a Bot around (either existing or invented nearer the time) to replace like-for-like stats. As for anything more specific or detailed, that may well be down to individual editors (there are many articles on suburbs or wards or who know what with Cenus information tucked deep inside the body text which will take good eyes to spot). doktorb _words^deeds 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This article needs some heavy updating--namely Labour in power between 1997-2010 to be in much more depth, and Labour after the 2010 election (leadership election, new leader).

Granted most sections are summaries, but 13 years of government deserves at least as much content as past sections. Not to mention there is nothing at all after September 2007.

I don't have the time myself right now, but hopefully by bringing this to attention some well-meaning Wikipedians could give it a go. It just seems dispiriting to see a Wikipedia article of something fairly important largely out-of-date. —JeevanJones (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just put the Victor Cazalet article on my watchlist and would ask if a few other editors with time to spare could do this as well for the next few days or so. He's suddenly become a figure of scandal in certain English daily newspapers (the Daily Mail and the Independent) with respect to Elizabeth Taylor. We can hope that the nonsense doesn't reach Wikipedia, but if it does it would be handy to have an extra eye or two on the article. Since there are no BLP concerns I don't think this needs to be escalated past a few watchful editors. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to this AfD, User GoodDay has moved a number of articles titled "Premiership of [name]" to "Prime Ministership of [name]". I do not know if this is appropriate or not, since the name Prime Ministership was said by him and another user to apply to Canadian prime ministers, but I don't know if that is also proper to do so also for British prime ministers. The articles that have been moved are Premiership of David Cameron, Premiership of Tony Blair, Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, and Premiership of Gordon Brown. Those were the ones linked to in the AfD and I do not know if GoodDay moved any other articles as well. Do note that after moving them, User GoodDay did not change the lede to reflect this new title, so if this change is decided to be kept, the ledes will need to be fixed. Silverseren^C 22:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I forgot the leads. Meanwhile, in the english language, Premiership & Premier for sovergien states, tend to be associated with Communist countries. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I also moved Premiership of Benjamin Disraeli and Premiership of William Gladstone, btw. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll move them all back. "Premiership" is the standard word used in the UK and "Premier" is often used as an alternative for "Prime Minister". Canada may be different. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Australian idea should be adopted? Move'em to Cameron Goverment, Brown Government, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But the UK is not Canada/Australia. The terminology of another country shouldn't be used on other countries just because. Silverseren^C 14:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

They should be, as they've all got the Westminister set-up. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But it's quite clear that the same terminology is not used between them. The set-up of their government doesn't determine what terms are used in each country. It's quite clear that Premiership is used in the UK, while it is not used elsewhere. Silverseren^C 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Margaret Thatcher's tumultuous premiership" ("For Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Britain's first woman prime minister, was about to embark on what was undeniably the most tumultuous peacetime premiership of the 20th century"); "...assesses Margaret Thatcher's premiership for BBC News Online's special report on the 20th anniversary of her first election victory"; "September 11 transformed Blair's premiership"; "How will history judge Tony Blair's premiership?"; "Brown denies 'dual premiership'"... It's certainly not an incorrect phrase to use. Given that GoodDay's only reason for moving them was his assumption that the terminology used in Canada was applicable to all similar governments, they should just be moved back now. postdlf (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

They were already reverted. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2007 election results for Birmingham have recently been made available via http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2011/04/local-elections-2011-background-briefing-pack/ Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article explicitly state the mechanism of how the outcome is decided. From the table one can assume it is a simple majority but the article should state this at the beginning. In some jurisdictions, including the USA and Australia, simple majorities are not sufficient, requiring either supermajorities and/or majorities of states (in addition to an overall majority) etc. Some may also require a specified margin, below which either a recount or a null result is called. Or a minimum percentage of all voters may need to have voted etc. Drmichaelrjames (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:The Troubles in Omagh#2011? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am interested in creating articles for individual wards in the constituency I live in, Pendle, but I don't know where to find or how to create the little pink and red maps showing the location of the ward within the borough. An example of this would be the top picture in the infobox here. Thanks, BigDom 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a blank at File:Pendle UK ward map 2010 (blank).svg and some instructions at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Derivatives that may or may not be helpful (if not please let me know so I can improve them(!)). Note these maps are not the red/pink ones, which I'm trying to move away from for a few reasons (see West Dorset for the new style).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It took me a while (about three hours) but I created the 20 individual ward maps and have uploaded them all to Commons. Your instructions were very helpful, cheers, BigDom 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Before and after the 2011 elections

I'm thinking of uploading a derived version of File:English districts 2010.svg for United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing the control of the councils. No overall control is easy enough, we have a colour for that (black). But what about those councils which did not have elections? White perhaps?

I also think a second map with the composition of every council is handy - it might be appropriate for a subarticle of Local government in England. The same two concepts would apply for the individual districts too: One of the election, one of the current composition.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking! White seems good (grey might get confused with independents or those others we haven't got a meta colour template for). It also keeps with what the beeb did. If you get bored, perhaps you could do a before (eg 2010) map of the councils' control? Zangar (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Images to the right are those for council control immediately before and after the elections: They include uncontested districts such as Cornwall or in London. The nominal date for the before map is April 2011 to avoid for any by-elections in past few months. I suspect there are a number of errors in both, but haven't had chance to check thoroughly. I figure both images are useful, but not sure where they can be used.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

They look good! I suppose if there is an "Analysis/Aftermath" section within United Kingdom local elections, 2011 then they could go there.

I've also just seen that the templates: Template:EnglishDistrictControl and Template:English county control will need to be updated as to the control of councils - is there one for the unitary authorities? Zangar (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

((Infobox legislature)) now has parameters for the language of the native name (| native_name_lang; for example "RO" for "Parlamentul of României" in Parliament of Romania) and date of creation (|Foundation=). Please make use of them! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Linda Smith (UK politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TreveX^talk 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, well looking at Special:NewPages, I came across Steve Crowther, a bio on the guy who is apparently the current executive chairman of the UK Independence Party. So, as an Australian editor who has no idea about British politics, I'm wondering if holding that position makes him 'automatically' notable (like being an MP)? If not, can any of you find any significant coverage of him in independent sources. I've added three refs to the article, but two of them are from the UKIP website and the other is just a passing mention (definitely not significant coverage). In any case, the article has been created by a new user and I'm loathe to send it to AfD just because I can't find any significant coverage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Crowther. Jenks24 (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have opened an RfC on the above article, about whether we can refer to it as "Eurosceptic". Any comments gratefully received, thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick notice that there is a discussion at Talk:Scottish Parliament general election, 2003 about standardising all the titles of articles for the elections of the Scottish Parliament to Scottish Parliament election, [year]. Zangar (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be an artile seperate from Prime Minister's Questions on Deputy Prime Minister's QuestionsOther dictionaries are better (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be merit in doing this, but as it is a relatively new invention (as far as I'm aware), as part of the coalition, there might not be enough material/history for a seperate article, especially if the bulk of the article is a repeat of PMQs. Also if it was discontinued after this parliament, there maybe calls to merge it back into PMQs. I'd say the best way to procede would be to expand the section within the PMQs article until it appears there is enough info and then propose a split on the talk page. Zangar (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellently put, Zangar, no need for a split at present. Maybe in ten years or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.But didn't John Prescott have his own questions when he was DPM?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As, I recall, he stood in occasionally when Blair was not available. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The present description of Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton, includes a scanned image of an engraving claiming to be that of Charles Agar. This is untrue. The image is that of Robert Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin from 1779 to 1801. Below is information regarding this engraving as I have recently purchased a 50 MB digital copy of this portrait from the National Library of Ireland.

Archbishop of Dublin by William Daniell (1769-1837) after George Dance (1741–1825) Soft-ground engraving after an original drawing from November 23rd, 1795 Published 1809 Image 18.5 x 13.5 cm., Sheet 27 x 20.2 cm. Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

This portrait should be moved to the Wikipedia description for Robert Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin from 1779 to 1801.

Robert Allen Johnson June 30, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertfowlersilver (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the National Portrait Gallery, London says that this is a portrait of Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton, Ref:"National Portrait Gallery - Portrait - NPG D12125; Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton". npg.org.uk. 2011 [last update]. Retrieved 13 July 2011. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |year= (help). This probably merrits further discussion on the relevant article discussion pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Diet, Apparel, etc. Act 1363#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

After the Act of Union of 1707 the nations of England, Scotland and Wales together became Great Britain. The reigning monarch of the time was Queen Anne who styled herself Queen of Great Britain. Wikipedia is littered with these inaccurate references. It makes a mockery of the intentions of a site like Wikipedia for such an error to proliferate. If you do not understand the issues, please do not write about them because you just pass misleading information into the world.Sgmp (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well of course you are free to edit such errors where you see them. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For many of the articles on Scottish local government elections prior to the 2000s some data (usually the number of votes cast for each party but sometimes more) is lacking. Scottish local elections, 1999 represents the best case, Scottish local Regional elections, 1982 the worst. Does anyone have access to a source with the missing data? Or even a suggestion as to where it might be found (I not far from a very large library ...)? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• 1994 (final) Regional Elections [1] (also gives some comparitive figures from 1990)
• 1995 First unitary elections [2]

Otherwise, dunno really. Gale databases are generally available in libraries with archives of various newspapers, but the results are generally just seat gains and losses.Lozleader (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, I was hoping there might be a shortcut, but thanks for the info. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let members know, that I've had to manually sort out the archiving of this page. It seems that MiszaBot II had been archiving old threads from April 2010 to the present randomly between Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 2 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 3 - probably because Archive 2 was full (>150K) and the bot's counter parameter was still set to archive in '2'. This made it very hard to find old threads based on a chronological order.

So I've moved all pre-2011 threads from Archive 3 to Archive 2, and all start-2011 to present threads from 2 to 3, and sorted by last entry date. In addition, as Archive 2 was now really big, I moved all pre-2010 threads from Archive 2 to Archive 1. Archive 2 (now just for 2010) is still by far the largest archive - it's interesting to see what a general election can do for interest to this project!

Hope people don't mind - it was just for ease of use. Please feel free to check the page histories to check I've cut and paste correctly. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've placed this article up for featured article review (here). Your project may be interested. The FAR is open to comment. I'll hopefully find the time to look into the article over the coming months myself. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of ministers who have served under 2 Prime Ministers - there are, however, very few who have served under 3 or more PMs. Would a list of such long serving Ministers be worthy of a Wikipedia article - also researching the article may take some time (though, it would of course be eminently verifiable).

I know of a few already:

• Michael Heseltine, under Heath, Thatcher & Major (I am sure there are several ministers that will fit this description)
• William Whitelaw, under Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath & Thatcher
• Robert Shirley, 13th Earl Ferrers, under Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher & Major
• Bertram Bowyer, 2nd Baron Denham, under Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher & Major
• Oliver Eden, 8th Baron Henley, under Thatcher, Major & Cameron

Thoughts? --New Progressive (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Following an excellent BBC article published today, I have started the Llanelli railway strike article. Please improve if you can, especially additional quality / academic refs. Ta. (By the way, I have redirected "the great unrest" to this article, but now doubt the wisdom of this, as the strike seems to be only a part of wider unrest. Maybe another, wider, article is needed?) --Mais oui! (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been working my way through the Cleanup listing for wikiproject Somerset and am now tacking incomplete lists. Many of these are constituencies where the lists of MPs are not complete - generally between 1295 and 1640. Specially these are:

• Bath (UK Parliament constituency)
• Bridgwater (UK Parliament constituency)
• Minehead (UK Parliament constituency)
• Somerset (UK Parliament constituency)
• Taunton (UK Parliament constituency)
• Wells (UK Parliament constituency)

I note on Parliaments historic records that many records were destroyed in a fire in 1834, so I was wondering if anyone had or knew of good sources to try to complete these lists? If no records are available is it worth keeping the "incomplete list" tags on the articles if they are unlikely ever to be completed?— Rod ^talk 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have got into a dispute with an unregistered editor (or editors) on the Adur local elections about the inclusion of some parish council by-elections and the description of a candidate in a council by-election. My reasons for my reversions can be seen on the article talk page, while a brief argument from the ip can be seen on my talk page here. If some uninvolved interested editor(s) could have a look and give another opinion and/or edit the article, as I fear it just becoming an edit war, or having to ask for the page to be protected otherwise. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. This IP editor has been systematically erasing all references to Liberal Democrats voting on tuition fees. It seems to me that this a relevant topic. He seems to be gearing up for an revert battle. What do think is the best way of handling this? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The information added to all and i mean all of the Liberal Democrat MP articles is uniform and NUS biased. The information should be on the Liberal Democrat page and not on each and every single Lib Dem MP. Adding it to every Liberal Democrat MP and only to them and in some cases having at the only thing they have done since the Coalition is ludicrous and gives unnecessary weight to a single issue. The wording being identical and added by the same user also shows they had an agenda to put the information there in the first place. All i have done is simply tone down the POV on the relevant articles where the information is notable such as John Hemming and Vince Cable and removed the uniform NUS biased information which is only about one vote on one issue which is better covered in the main article on either the Coalition government or the Liberal Democrats. Adding the info only to LD MPs and having the information identical shows the information was only put there to be political and push a certain POV regarding the LD MPs. It does not belong on articles for every LD MP.--95.147.53.59 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Wiki is not a newspaper, nor is it a blog, nor is it a profile of a political nature. It is an encyclopedia. If it is viewed notable, by consensus and through the usual means of asking the wider audience, to add this detail to Liberal Democrat MPs, then it must also be added to /all/ MPs. There are rules (see WP:POV) about neutrality. There is an issue, clearly, but one which is flavoured by partisan concerns. Therefore Wiki editors must be careful not to show off their prejudices. Editing JUST the Lib Dem MPs to show this "evidence" without doing the same for all other 600+ parliamentarians is biased, and as such falls short of the standards we require doktorb _words^deeds 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The assessment by doktorb is correct, based on WP:POV; we have to treat all the UK parliamentarians eligible to vote for that bill equally. Furthermore, there have been other votes regarding tuition fees in previous parliaments which do not get a mention on the respective MPs articles. Also to note, other MPs that voted controversially in the most recent bill (e.g. the Conservative rebels) who do not all have that fact listed on their articles. Therefore to single out Liberal Democrat MPs for mention goes against Wikipedia policy - either all MPs should have it noted on their articles for all tuition fee bills, or only the most important/influential (e.g. notably-related) MPs for that particular bill. Zangar (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The assessment by doktorb may be correct but its application in this case is staggeringly inconsistent since the IP editors are simply going through and blanking whole sections about Liberal Democrat MPs while ignoring MPs from other parties. LNWWatcher (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A collaboration is being formed to promote this article to Good Article. You can join the discussion here. Green plusses will be handed out. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All editors from the above related discussion, as well as User:Off2riorob, User:David Biddulph and User:Smartse, who have been implicitly referred to in this discussion, have been notified of this discussion in compliance with guidelines. Zangar (talk)

There are some basic questions raised above: 1) Is information about the voting behaviour of MPs (or Lords) of interest and of value to readers of these pages? 2 )Should all votes be included, or can there be a meaningful basis for deciding which should and which should not be mentioned? Here's my comment... Yes, I think the voting behaviour is of interest, particularly when the person appears to have voted in a manner which is rebellious, or inconsistent with their known beliefs, behaviour or commitments, or when the vote was important. No, not all votes should be included, because that would be ridiculous. So, which general votes should be included (with information on the voting behaviour of each individual who could have voted)? How about any that have been of singular importance in the media, or are of national/international significance, or which are involved in establishing or overturning legislation that is of importance. For example, a vote in favour or against engaging in a war, making fundamental changes in legislation (Death penalty, NHS, entry/exit from EU etc). There are situations in which the voting behaviour of only selected individuals or groups need be recorded on their pages. For example, if the individual contributed as a speaker in a debate, or if the individual can be shown to have voted in a manner that was different from how he/she had committed to, or if a group of individuals had voted as part of a block (and that block vote was rebellious or at odds with party political commitments). For Lords, it would seem that there should be more detailed information about voting, because these individuals are unelected, wield significant power and yet are open to less scrutiny than MPs. Rather than attempt to make judgements about the importance of the specific issues, it would seem better to allow more information on voting to be added, and then to review it at strategic times in the future. For example, the NHS reforms are clearly important, and may have a fundamental impact on health services, but perhaps in 1-2 years the final implementation of the reforms will have little impact. I also don't see that it should be the responsibility of one individual to propagate voting information across all pages for MPS/Lords who voted. This takes time. I would also suggest that if a particular voting event is considered important enough to be listed on a number of pages for MPS/Lords, then the aim should be to agree on a formal wording for a statement about that event which can then be applied to all pages (with that individual's vote being added). In that way, the information is neutral. For example, a description of a particular vote on whether to engage in war, complete with links to relevant articles and the individual's vote.Rondoggy (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is entirely reasonable on an article about any particular politician to include information about that person's voting record. Provided it meets the criteria for WP:NPOV it is clearly likely to be information which is of interest to someone who may be reading about them. The difficulty in the case above is that it appears that, following the vote on raising the cap on tuition fees, someone went through and added info to every single Lib Dem MP, which it has legitimately been pointed out looks suspiciously like soapboxing.

I've only really edited Greg Mulholland, so I've revised the section on his voting interests to remove details of specific votes and include specific issues and areas of interest (such as his acknowledged views on abortion which differ from the mainstream view of his party) instead. This seems like a sensible compromise, and also addresses the difficulty of keeping info about votes on specific subjects up-to-date.

LNWWatcher (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous interest statement: Rondoggy and I have been previously discussing a specific issue on this at my talk page.

I'll address point 1) first. I think that there are cases where an individual's votes may be recorded, but these are most likely to be very few. Don't forget, inclusion criteria for wikipedia is not "interestingness", but notability. Party rebels could be described as notable, although if this was applied then the likes of Peter Bone would have a huge section on this. But we could never apply the test of a politician being "inconsistent with their known beliefs, behaviour or commitments" because this is very subjective, as who are we to say what a politician believes in their head and how can we prove that a vote violates their belief/behavior. This kind of information cannot be verified.

Point 2) of who: I think LNWWatcher hits the nail on the head with this one, when including information on a vote we have to follow the policy of WP:NPOV at all times, just as we have to follow other wikipedia policies. We have to ensure that the material on that vote is not given undue weight within a politician's article (bearing in mind that there are hundreds of votes each parliament) and that any politicians (of which there are 570+ in each House) singled out for inclusion of information are not given undue attention over others, which would also violate WP:NPOV and can lead to accusations of WP:SOAPBOX. Obviously the criteria we set out to test who is singled out would have to also keep within the policies of verifiability, neutral point-of-view and notability. A speaker in a debate sounds like a good idea, but as there are often many speakers in each debate, this effectively undoes any point on notability and causes problems with NPOV - unless it can be verified in Hansard that the speaker voted one way and spoke entirely differently on specifics for that vote. Politicians who "voted in a manner that was different from how he/she had committed to", would again be impossible to verify as it is again subjective - unless they are rebelling against the party whip, in which case the inclusion of this vote can be permitted as per the above (rebel) reasoning and the fact that it is verifiable in Hansard or PublicWhip. Again this applies to "a group of individuals had voted as part of a block" - which again would be covered in the "rebel criteria", as seen with the Maastricht Rebels.

But politicians voting with their party can never be seen as necessary to be included in an individuals article, as that happens in the grand majority of cases - it fails notability, whether it is an important vote or not. And unless all those politicians who voted are covered and all the politicians' individual with-party votes are included it would fail WP:NPOV - which is essentially where adding individual votes to politician's articles is liable to fall down. Which is why it is far more prudent to add content to a single article on the vote/bill itself, as it would be harder to fail NPOV by giving undue weight to the vote and would be easier to identify and rectify any WP:SOAPBOX incidents. By singling out certain politicians for having stock paragraphs of vote information added and not on others that meet the same criteria will always fail NPOV. Zangar (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Zangar please don't turn this into a private dispute. The primary action of politicians is politics; that includes voting in whichever house they sit in. So, within reason there should be some basis for recording that in wikipedia. I can understand that there may be difficulties, but these pages become meaningless if we don't put real information into them. I do not agree with your interpretation of WP:NPOV or WP:SOAPBOX; you are looking for reasons to block things rather than finding ways to work within the rules and produce something useful for people. Please can you start to think about how to include information sensibly, rather than trying to stop it being included at all. Here's an example of why this is important. Take the situation of a footballer; clearly we don't want wikipedia to be clogged up with every goal they ever scored, but it would be odd if there was no mention of a goal scored in a cup final. Likewise an unusual goal (say, the only header they had ever scored) or one scored in a match against a well known rival team. Without that information, you might as well be talking about a lamp-post rather than a footballer. The content of a person's page must represent their professional activity. If you have a page about a politician, it is essential that there is some record of their parliamentary actions. Yes, a lot of this is present within Hansard, but EVERYTHING in wikipedia is verified using information that is held somewhere else. As for conflict with beliefs or other behaviour being unprovable, that is nonsense. If a politician has been elected on the basis of specific commitments they have made (such as a rousing public speech about student fees, or declared involvement in a health charity, or a publicly held position on marriage or abortion)then these are things of public record. They are eminently provable. The whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to bring together information that forms an essential picture of the subject. Voting with the party, under a whip, is also notable. The application of a whip that causes uniform voting across a party, particularly in the House of Lords, may be a notable event if the issue voted upon is significant. So, to take an example; if Liberal Democrat MPs voted, under a whip, with the coalition on student fees, in contradiction to their own pre-election manifesto commitments then that would be a notable event. Situations like this ARE notable; they pass notability very easily, because they are subject to a great deal of discussion in media, parliament etc, and are verified through numerous independent sources. As for the addition of stock paragraphs to personal pages, this is difficult. If someone goes to the page of a well known MP, and wants to find out about them, it seems reasonable that key voting history is an essential part of that MP's profile. If a vote is of sufficient importance to be included, then surely the wording must be the same (or very similar) for all individuals whose pages include that vote in order to avoid conflict with undue weight. There may be some individual variation if a particular person spoke in a debate, was a vociferous supporter of a Bill etc, but the core statement should be the same. The most important decision is which votes are important and how to include information about them. It would be nice if Zangar would discuss these issues here rather than removing content from pages and then threatening to have someone blocked just because of a disagreement.Rondoggy (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of making this a "private dispute" (or at least show me how I'm doing this), I am trying, like you to come to a resolution of this. You are right that we need to find a way to include any information on votes in a way that does not violate wikipedia policy - and as I have said consistently, and I note other editors have suggested to you, that we include this information on the page of the vote/bill itself and not on the invidual's article (unless it is overtly notable and would not violate NPOV by it's inclusion). This seems to me an excellent resolution, as that information is still recorded and would not violate WP:UNDUE.

The analogy of the footballer falls down somewhat if in each match 500+ goals were scored per game as a norm (which usually happens with votes). But certainly for a game where an average number of goals is around 3, inclusion of an important goal on the scorer's article is OK and would not violate policy.

You are right that information such as the tuition fees vote should be included but this is significant to the Liberal Democrat party and should be included on its article and the bill's article not the individual MPs' articles as they are not specifically the subject. WP:UNDUE states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" - in this case it is appropriate to the party and the bill, but not to any MPs who are expected to follow their party whip, the fact that they followed their party whip is not significant, as they do this over 95% of the time.

I'd like to point out that I have always discussed the issue and left policy reasonings regarding my reversions in my edit summaries, where I have not used the rollback feature and have never threatened to block anyone. Zangar (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My views. Yes, it would be interesting to record voting records on particular policy issues. However, this is fraught with difficulty. If you focus on, say, tuition fees you'll have to ensure all MPs have the same information, covered as fairly for one as another. If you focus on, say, what is given to us by Theyworkforyou.com or whatever it is, then we have to ensure there's no problem with copyright, terms of use violations etc, and all which goes on from there. I am wary about Wiki being some form of consolidated version of existing sources for this kind of information. doktorb _words^deeds 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How MPs vote on issues such as this is basically irrelevant in their articles - unless you can show that there is something notable about that vote, which in this case that has not been done and anyway, often the whip will tell them what to vote - if this is the case, perhaps a mention at the liberal democrats main article (if the fact that the liberals voted in support of this is really notable) the coverage of someones favorite issue at all the BLP articles that voted on it is imo undue and soapoboxing - it is worthy of a mention only at the parent article. If any of these additions Rongoggy has added still remain in articles they should be removed.Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit WP:TLDR to be honest, by my £0.02: There are other sites that are likely to do this better than we ever can such as theyworkforyou. Specifically regarding the edit by Rondoggy that I reverted, the reference did not even mention the article subject, let alone how they voted. The only time I think it would be relevant to include voting decisions would be if sources have written articles entirely about the subject's votes. (WP:N isn't a content policy by the way, it's about what topics to cover, but not what to include). SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you means Smartse. The text you reverted mentioned the subject of the article and how they voted. Anyway, I give up, because it is pointless arguing this any more. Clearly people like Zangar and Off2riorob are determined to see any form of general discussion on this subject only in terms of the disputed changes I made. They give no ground because they don't want to concede any point that might undermine their position on the edits relating to the Lords votes. The fact is that people reading personal biographies of politicians expect to find information about their political activity. The pages on the liberal party and the health reform bill would become unreadable if they were filled with information about individual votes. The only sensible place to put this information is where it has most relevance; on the page of the person who voted. UNDUE is a nonsense defense. Firstly, because personal pages of MPs and Lords differ hugely in content even though information is known about these people. Does every MP's page record the football team they support, or that they have had affairs, or even that they have been remarried or had children? Some of this is very basic information, but it isn't present on all pages. Do we remove all information that is not duplicated between all MP's pages just in case it doesn't comply with UNDUE? So, congratulations; now none of the individual voting behaviour of MPs and Lords is available on wikipedia, regardless of its historical importance. What a victory Rondoggy (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User Kyrenator has decided that the consensus reached here is nonsense and has twice (once after having been made aware of this discussion) reverted as vandalism a number of edits which complied with that consensus. Does the community agree with his interpretation? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

'twas I who advised, and to be fair the user hasn't re-reverted my changes to Greg Mulholland as things stand. Per my comments above, I actually think that an MP's position on specific issues is relevant and encyclopedic, but this isn't the way to go about it. On the other hand, the removal of voting records was also done in a way that ignored WP:NPOV (i.e. they only went and removed voting record from Lib Dem MPs, ignoring MPs from other parties) and so I'm not sure that it's fair to say concensus was achieved! LNWWatcher (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the point you were making with regard to Greg Mulholland, LNWWatcher. My talk of nonsense was mainly directed against this bizarre policy of content blanking and censorship that David Biddulph seems to be trying to enforce, which is not only completely unsupported by the discussion above, but was actually instigated on the 4th October - long before this discussion actually commenced on the 17th!

I agree that we can't record how every single MP voted on every single issue on their personal page; that would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, as LNWWatcher said, it is surely appropriate to record their stances on key political issues - otherwise what's the point? And if the issue of tuition fees isn't key, then I don't know what is. Remember that this was an issue that generated mass public attention as well as protests in London - mainly because Lib Dem MPs were being told to break the manifesto pledges that they had made barely nine months previously. Therefore, how those MPs actually voted on the matter is I think extremely noteworthy.

Of course, I recognise that there are issues surrounding bias, and that it is important that we get the wording right. However, I share Rondoggy's view when he said:

"you are looking for reasons to block things rather than finding ways to work within the rules and produce something useful for people. Please can you start to think about how to include information sensibly, rather than trying to stop it being included at all."

If the wording isn't ideal, then let's work together to produce something better that works. Surely that's a better and a more productive response then seeking to remove it all and ban any mention of it on the MPs' pages.

Finally, I find the argument that since we can't do this equally for all MPs we should therefore not do anything at all, to be utterly bizarre. If we were to adopt this attitude across the whole of wikipedia then nothing would ever be done. Yes, there are massive differences and inequalities between various MPs pages. Should our response to that be to strip them all down so they're all like Sir Robert Smith, 3rd Baronet - thus making them all 'equal' in saying virtually nothing at all? No, surely the correct attitude to adopt is that Wikipedia is not perfect and will never be perfect, but that we are all continuing to improve it and build on it day by day.

In conclusion, I would argue that on Wikipedia the assumption should always be in favour of the inclusion of factual sourced content, unless and until a clear consensus is reached in favour of removal, for whatever reason. I see no such consensus, or any kind of clear agreement about anything above whatsoever.Kyrenator (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not sure anyone is trying to stop the information being included. The pertinent question is, "is this the right place to include the information?", not, "should the information be on WP?". I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Lib Dems' position/inconsistency/hypocrisy _{(delete according to your preference)} on tuition fees should be included, but is it relevant to do so on each individual MP's page?

When it comes to individual MPs, surely what matters is the key positions of that person? For instance, with Greg Mulholland and his views and record in relation to abortion - it is an issue specific to him rather than just showing a commentary on his voting record, and it is something which is relevant and interesting to people looking for information about Mulholland the person, rather than Mulholland the backbench lobby-fodder (which essentially is what commentary on voting records is).

LNWWatcher (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a view from someone uninvolved: I'd say that how politicians vote is quite important, but obviously there are huge neutrality and notability concerns here. Let's have a look at Greg Mulholland: the reason the abortion stuff is interesting is because it would seem to go against the majority of Lib Dem policy on abortion, which is generally for legal access to abortion. The flipside would be someone like Evan Harris who was very strongly in favour of legal abortion and a number of other things like that. When politicians are just voting along party lines, that's hardly news. That a someone voted with a three-line whip on something is not news. But, of course, Wikipedia is not about news. Going back to the Greg Mulholland thing, what concerns me is that the link is to Public Whip, which is hardly a reliable source and is basically a primary source, so there are major WP:OR concerns. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a bit of a tangent but... how is Public Whip not a reliable source? It's simply a factual record of all divisions, taken from Hansard (which is the primary source) and analysed using in that case a keyword search (making it by definition a secondary source).LNWWatcher (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about a WikiProject merger for WikiProject Politics is going on here and may be of interest to some editors. Just to note, the proposals do not directly affect this project (to date). Zangar (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion has been started on a page regarding future election articles. in this case it is regarding the UK local elections in 2012. The below is taken from the original discussion. --Lucy-marie (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of red links here which appear to be part of a poorly/incorrectly used template. It needs to be fixed, or perhaps the article should be deleted until the election is actually referenced and notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Under that reasoning there would never be a future class election article and the whole 2012 local elections template would need deleting. As for the red links that will correct itself when the election takes place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't have articles that contain broken template links and we shouldn't have unreferenced articles and we shouldn't have articles that actually don't say anything of any use. Unless this is fixed, I'll AFD it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look at all of the future election articles, all follow the same with the same templates I also suggest looking at articles for elections where candidates are known but the election has not taken places the same results template is used, giving identical results to as on this page. I suggest moving this to the politics project if you wish to take this further as opposed to just critiquing my edits articles i create.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

May I also suggest having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom where this can be discussed for all the future UK local election articles (I note 8 such articles currently - with not much difference between ayn of them). I'm personally inclined towards The Rambling Man's view that we should not have these articles at this stage and think a discussion could at the wikiproject could reach consensus on when such articles should be created. Davewild (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's nothing in this "article" that provides information that isn't in the 2011 article and it's unreferenced, contains broken templates and is frankly a shambles. They should be created when the election has taken place or if something "notable" has occurred prior to the election. I will have a look at the discussion at the Wikiproject that Davewild has mentioned (should one exist) but will be inclined to nominate this, and the other 8 that Dave notes, for deletion sooner rather than later. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one currently but If you give me a bit I will be happy to start one. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

New discussion

• We currently have the template Template:United Kingdom local elections, 2012 which redlinks to all the 2012 local council elections. Of these 8 have alreaby been started:-

• Coventry Council election, 2012
• North Tyneside Council election, 2012
• Sheffield Council election, 2012
• Adur Council election, 2012
• Broxbourne Council election, 2012
• Crawley Council election, 2012
• Preston Council election, 2012
• Worthing Council election, 2012
• East Ayrshire Council election, 2012

• My personal view is that these are all WP:CRYSTAL violations and we should not be creating such articles until the month before the election itself. The articles add little, (or nothing) to what can be found at the previous election article; typically just including the current composition of the council and the seats that will be contested, all of which can be found at the 2011 and 2008 (or 2007) articles. There is no significant coverage of these elections at these stage, also meaning that they do not meet the main notability guideline. They also do not make it easier to work on articles after the election as they are sometimes abandoned by the article creator.
• I think we should be discouraging the creation of these articles until the beginning of April before the election, when the official candidate lists are published, campaigns begin and newspapers begin producing the significant coverage that is necessary to write articles on the elections. Exceptions could be made where significant reliable coverage starts earlier (such as controversy over party selection of candidates leading to candidates defecting etc.). As such I think the template should either by userfied or deleted until 1 April 2012 and the individual articles either deleted or redirected to the relevant page (e.g. Coventry local elections). The United Kingdom local elections, 2012 page itself is fine as it shows where elections are going to take place, what number of seats will be contested and previous control. Davewild (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified the creators of all the above pages of this discussion (apart from Lucy-marie who is already aware of it). Davewild (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that these type of articles should be created once the councils have declared the candidates for the wards (is this before 1 April?) or as Davewild says if coverage starts earlier, ensuring that there is content within them, as it is notable that an election will happen, but an article does need to have meaningful content. I don't have a preference as to whether the existing articles go for AfD of not, but I don't think any others should be created until they can contain something meaningful. But I think the template is fine to leave where it is, as we will be using it later and the parent United Kingdom local elections, 2012 article will remain. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This year the councils published the official candidate list on about the 5 April (+- a day or two). I don't think the official council lists have ever been published before 1 April (someone will no doubt correct me on that if I am wrong). My concern about the template is the redlinks on it encourage editors to create new articles, which we don't want yet - however I suppose removing it from United Kingdom local elections, 2012 would reduce it's visibility significantly, or I could just restore it at the beginning of April. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:CRYSTAL and in the Crawley example, the page offers nothing beyond the fact that there may be another election in 2012. That can be covered in a sucbox/infobox/prose in the 2011 election article. No need for this redlink farm which will be entirely useless for the next six months. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose any move to delete, remove, or otherwise redact the articles which have been created so far. This is not Crystal Balling, because we know these elections are going to happen. Yes, these elections are the same as those in the previous route, but they have always been so, and many vigilant editors have permitted them on the grounds that they get updated. Those which are not updated (and with me and Davewild working so well, that's not so many) are almost always redirected.

I do agree with the issues about the Template. There are too many red links. If Wikipedia was busier than it is now, those red links would be filled in before Spring. I am concerned that they won't be filled in this time quite so quickly (see DaveWild's contributions to see how long it takes).

We all agree that these election articles must stay, eventually. We all agree that this project exists to work towards building a reference point for researching UK local elections. What we disagree on is looking into the future. I suggest the following:

1. The created 2012 articles remain "as is".
2. The Template is deleted
3. A new policy is agreed amongst all active users which agrees when, and how, articles for the forthcoming years are dealt with.

One further point - 2012 is pretty heavy on elections. Scottish local elections, Welsh local elections, English local elections, London Mayoral elections - if we can all work together, then it will be smooth running. doktorb _words^deeds 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The WP:CRYSTAL guideline says that articles about future events should only be created if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Barring a collapse of British society, these elections will take place. Which just leaves the question of whether next year's elections are notable. If the notability is in doubt, then I can probably find a citation or two for that particular page, but I'll hold off doing anything to the article until we've reached consensus.

I'd be fine with the template being temporarily deleted, but think that we should probably leave the existing pages as is. As for future elections, I'd be happy allowing them from any point after the previous round of elections have been finished. The latest point in the cycle that I could see an argument for not having the articles is the point at which nominations are formally open. Even then, you may have some parties declaring their candidates in advance of that date, and hence have more detailed information. Bouncelot (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: How do know these elections will be contested by the parties listed in each page? Where's the evidence that UKIP, Greens, Tories, Lib Dems and Labour only (and in each case) will contest these seats? No independents? Without references, these pages speculate as to the composition of the candidate parties for each ward. Also, the general lack of references, errors in dates in some cases, continual use of red linked templates, these should all be addressed. I'm not sure as to the use of these articles at all right now. Why can't the existing 2011 articles simply have a statement stating when the next elections are scheduled for (after all, they may not take place on those dates, although it is most likely the do...) which would therefore cover all the information in the vast majority of these "articles". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rambling Man, I have been very careful in the Preston 2012 article (the only one I have written of that list). If you press "Edit this page", you'll see that I have hidden the election box templates. You are right to ask how we know that candidates are going to stand, because as of October 2011, we don't know. That's why the election boxes are hidden, and can only remain hidden until the candidates are known. The only specific information I have on the article is the summary of the 2008 poll. As I have suggested, the current red link bonanza that is the Template is a bit "off" and I suggest it should be removed from Wikispace for the time being. I suggest that it would be a bit much to turn all of these into redirects, instead we should agree to leave alone those which do exist and wait on others until information is available. I am willing to co-operate on how to ensure the 2012 articles (all of them) are treated and how best to handle this issue for the future doktorb _words^deeds 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello doktorbuk, yes I was aware that some of those listed articles were drastically different from the others, your Preston article being a good example of one which actually provides useful and in general referenced material. Unfortunately, most of the others don't do either and provide speculative and incorrect and unreferenced information. Typically that would make a good candidate for deletion...! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind :) I understand the concerns, and although I am usually a deletionist at heart I do worry about the consequences of redirecting those articles already created given that this area of Wikipedia is already woefully understaffed as it is. We need to be careful not to administrate ourselves to death. If there is consensus to redirect the least....what's the word......constructive? Useful? current articles to their 'central article', then I think it's only fair enough to accept the consensus. I think we should wait on more editors getting involved. doktorb _words^deeds 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's partly why I've held back on nominating the weaker ones for deletion. I'm certainly reasonably new to this area of Wikipedia and didn't want to rock the boat too much, but the creation of effectively empty, sometimes inaccurate and speculative, unreferenced stubs is, in general, not good for Wikipedia, regardless of the project guidelines. But I'm happy to help here where I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Despite what I said above about holding out on edits until we get consensus, I've added in some references to the Coventry article, as today's local paper ran a story about a candidate being selected. I think that makes the notability of that page beyond reasonable dispute. We do, however, need some degree of consensus about when articles may be created in future. The options appear to be:
  • After the previous election has finished.
  • After the first candidate announcements (or possibly other relevant events, such as boundary changes or announcement/reporting of a concurrent local referendum)
  • After the candidate nominations are formally opened
  • After the candidates are officially confirmed

My personal preference would be for the first or second option. Bouncelot (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Until there's something factual to report other than the date of the next election, no new article should be created. It would be pointless and speculative. The third choice above is the best one, however the second at a push, as long as it only included confirmed candidates. (Incidentally, are those elections in Coventry really taking place in 2011??!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Rambling Man is right that articles should only be created when something factual can be reported. Although I would prefer option 4 (with the "other relevant events" caveat), basically when the councils release the official confirmed candidate lists, so that the articles are less open to speculation (such as independents who may or may not be standing, but don't go through a selection process). Zangar (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there really any point in having articles on UK general elections in places like Essex and Cornwall? I can understand the logic for creating relevant articles for the sub-nations of the UK in a post-devolution environment, but to me it just seems rather silly to have the results for every single county (and even more bizarre for just two counties).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the case of Cornwall, the argument for the article probably rests on the existence of Mebyon Kernow, and Cornwall's historic status of having been outside England for so much longer than everywhere else. Can't see the reasoning behind the Essex one, though. Bouncelot (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer both articles to be deleted. Articles for UK sub-nations in a post-devolution environment are understandable, but this is not applicable to either of the counties referred to. How would we go about deleting the articles?--Jonesy1289 (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Try nominating them at WP:AFD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Election articles that have occurred should stay, those that haven't should be nominated for deletion unless they do more than just tell you the date of the election next year. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that the area covered by each article in these cases is unrelated to the body to which elections took place. That is, there is no reason why "MPs elected in Cornwall" are any different to "MPs elected in Devon". They are all members of a national parliament, not a local authority. Elections to, say, Cornwall Council could have their own page, but splitting up national election results in accordance with irrelevant (for that purpose) local boundaries seems unnecessary, regardless of whether the elections reported have already taken place or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I nominate an entire category of articles? For example, all of the articles here: Category:General election results in Essex

EDIT: I've managed to nominate the 2001 United Kingdom general election result in Essex article for deletion. If there is any easier way to nominate all articles in a category than editing each article then the information would be appreciated.

EDIT #2: I've added all Essex-related articles to the same deletion list. I'll add Cornwall depending on the outcome of the deletion request for the Essex articles.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was agreed that the Essex articles should be deleted. I have since nominated the similar Cornwall articles for deletion. Feel free to voice your opinions on the deletion of those articles at the AfD page linked to.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated some more county/city sub-divisions in the above AfD nomination, as was suggested to me over there. The articles are proving quite difficult to track down - which rather demonstrates a concern aired previously - so if anyone does find any related articles which have not been nominated then please add them to the AfD article so that the discussion is kept in one place. Thank you.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested by some in a recent AfD that the UK general election results in individual counties be merged into regional articles. What do others think to this? I think it would be a good compromise, and indeed it would be in keeping with the sub-national results articles as well as most media coverage (e.g. BBC election map). If people think these mergers into regional articles would be a good idea then I will begin collating the information.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Labour MP Alan Keen has passed away. The articles Feltham and Heston by-election, 2011 and Feltham and Heston by-election, 2012 are currently redirecting to the main constituency article Feltham and Heston (UK Parliament constituency).

Consensus rules Wiki so the final decision will have to come from debate on this but....I am leaning towards "opening" the 2012 article once we have enough sources for candidate selection, dates etc. There's no way the by-election is going to be held this year, and in anycase, there is the taste and decency argument to be had around opening an article so quickly.

What are peoples views on this? doktorb _words^deeds 11:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is tricky, seeing as it's near the end of the year and that we don't know exactly in which year the by-election will be called (although my guessing is it'll be called for 2012). When thinking about where such an article should reside we should bear-in-mind WP:CRYSTAL. I think we need to choose a time-neutral title, such as Next Feltham and Heston by-election perhaps (in the same vein as Next United Kingdom general election), and then move it to the appropriate year once the by-election has been announced, or once parliament breaks up for Christmas and we know it'll be in 2012. Zangar (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would favour waiting until a referenceable list of candidates is available, as in all cases in these articles. This is a sad example as to why creating future election articles is, as my mother would say, a bit previous. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Upcoming Feltham and Heston by-election - or even Feltham and Heston by-election, 2011 or 2012, given that we can be sure it will be one date or the other. As with any other article, we can start it once we can say something which is non-obvious and can be referenced to reliable sources (given that it is clearly sufficiently notable for an article). I doubt that is yet the case, but it will be long before there's a confirmed list of candidates - that comes quite late in the process. Warofdreams talk 14:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that seems reasonable. I understand the final candidate's list may take some time to come out, but my question is what would actually make a future election article useful? Right now I think everything can be covered in the existing election article. At what point is a stand-alone article required? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that time would be when something notable happens for this particular by-election, e.g. some well-sourced campaigning or controversial issue - which might come before the official candidate list. Basically if we feel something needs to be recorded on wikipedia on this by-election (besides the obvious that one needs to happen because of a death and previous results), it should go in its own article to avoid WP:COATRACKing the constituency article. Zangar (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would vote to keep in the constituency article until more information comes about. More specifically, the date at which the by-election is named could be the point at which to start a new article.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I am having something of an edit war about this because of some of the issues you have identified. I think it is silly, as well as breaking WP:Crystal, to have a 2011 dated article. There is no reliable source which says "There is going to be a by-election in December 2011". To start an 2011 dated article would be jumping the gun. I opened a 2012 dated article which redirects to the main article page, and I think it would be much, much more common sense to edit THAT when the time comes (i.e., after the funeral if nothing else).

Without any date or candidates chosen, it just seems we could be opening ourselves to all sorts of claims if we create a dated article. I do accept the point that we have future election articles open already and it could be edited on this basis. I agree with Warofdreams' point that it is quite late before we know a full list of candidates (it is, iirc, only a few weeks before polling day when the list is confirmed) doktorb _words^deeds 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is it's best to wait until we're sure the by-election isn't going to be in 2011. And this is from the person who started the Feltham...by-election, 2011 page! (I blanked in my mind how late it was in 2011 - I agree it's highly unlikely to be this year.) As others have said we're unlikely to miss out on notable information by not having a 'Next Feltham...by-election'-type article. Nothing will really happen until the candidates are chosen anyway. Redverton (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

By way of an extra bit of information, over 3,300 people looked at Feltham and Heston yesterday, about 800 people looked at the 2012 dated by-election article. and only 350 ish people looked at the 2011 dated by-election article. Obviously these stats might be flawed but it's a good indication that the main page is more of a draw *at the moment* than the by-election pages. Now that everything has calmed down a bit I suggest we can leave things as they are until the by-election date is confirmed. By that point we can then work on the article. doktorb _words^deeds 07:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Independent (politician)/meta/color appears to be malfunctioning.

See for instance:

• United Kingdom local elections, 2011#Non-metropolitan_districts (Mansfield and West Someset)
• List of members of London County Council 1919–1937 (Lambeth North: Rose Lamartine Yates)

I can't figure how to fix it. Anyone? Lozleader (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hooray someone did! Lozleader (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to resolve the problem mentioned on User_talk:TexasAndroid#Meta.2Fcolor. I don't understand why it uses a colon to apparently point to a subpage within article space - but, of course, I don't want to break anything; so, I've reverted, and will leave it to others to sort out. Apologies for any problem caused.  Chzz  ►  14:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I hope my repair work hasn't made things worse =/. doktorb _words^deeds 14:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions about the pages for the United Kingdom local elections. Firstly, the 2007 article includes the English and Welsh results, but the Scottish ones are on a separate page. Surely the UK page should contain the Scottish results as well.

Secondly, at what point should we start listing fourth or fifth parties on the Election infobox? When they start winning (or losing?) control of councils, or when they get above a certain number of councillors (and if so, what kind of threshold should be set)? It seems odd that Plaid are not on there in 2007, despite winning more council seats than Labour managed in 2009 (yes, I know they were vastly different electorates, but it still seems odd at first glance). Bouncelot (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish to import Nasty party information I found the origin of the word [3][4][5][6] and its usage [7][8][9][10][11]. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Council election pages in England are mostly in pretty much the same format as when I first started creating them back in 2005. This format can be seen here. However I have tried a bit of a rejig at West Somerset local elections (and the relevant individual council election pages) and wanted to get some opinions on whether this is an improvement or not before changing any more pages.

The biggest change is that I have moved the individual by-election results to the council election page occuring before the by-election (e.g. by-election results between 2007 and 2011 are on the West Somerset Council election, 2007 page now.) This is how some Scottish local government by-elections are being done already (e.g. Aberdeen City Council election, 2007). In replacement on West Somerset local elections I have added a summary of the by-election results using the format already found at Brighton and Hove local elections. This means the West Somerset local elections page is less dominated by by-elections as happens when there are lots of by-elections for a council.

Other changes are that I have created a Navbox Template Template:West Somerset Council elections so instead of using sequence boxes (like I removed here this template is used. This allows movement, say from 1999 to 2007, in one click and the template can also be used on the West Somerset local elections page. Finally I have added a summary of council election results to the West Somerset local elections page rather than just having a list of council elections (again using a format from Brighton and Hove local elections).

So what do others think - are these changes an improvement or not? Anyone think of any further improvements or changes? I would like to add a map to the West Somerset local elections showing the council composition as of the last election (2011 in this case), but in this case there were boundary changes in 2011 so don't have a map to do it yet (I have asked User:Nilfanion if a new ward map can be done), but will do that on future pages unless others think it is a bad idea. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The NavBox is something I was thinking of doing and think it's a great addition. What would you recommend for "in thirds" elections? One idea I considered was to put into rows each "tranche" (Elected in 2004 and then 2008 then 2012, etc.) rather than a long list. Would that work?

I prefer by-elections to stay where they are. I like the idea of linking them to the relevant election article but feel it could get tricky and messy. Easier to keep an eye on by-elections if they have their own place together. And for a quick check on trends/patterns it works better that way too. doktorb _words^deeds 20:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think keeping to one list would be the best format for one-third elections as otherwise you are more likely to confuse the reader than anything else - especially when you get boundary changes and the whole council is elected. It is also the format used for probably the world's most famous body that elects by thirds - the US Senate - Template:United States Senate elections and by bodies that are elected by halves such as Template:United Nations elections.

The problem with the way by-elections are at the moment to me, is that they can be at least 80% or more of the local elections page, giving them undue weight compared to the main council elections. (e.g. on North Somerset local elections most of the page is devoted to by-elections, when the main council elections are far more important.).

The summary itself should provide a quick look at trends for most readers, but to try and address your objection I have added links from the summary to the full information on the West Somerset Council election, 2007 page (and could do the same for earlier pages as well). This enables a quick one click to the full information on the by-election. This is the change I made - would that be better? Davewild (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I approve! Very smart. I'll have a crack at that tomorrow. Agree with you on the NavBox thing; I'll play around and see what I can come up with. Great work, as ever :) doktorb _words^deeds 20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the same links with some earlier by-elections here. I think I will have a go at Carlisle next as an in thirds council and see how it works there - could take a while though! Davewild (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The navbox is great. Not sure about the by-election stuff though. I don't think it makes sense for them to be associated with the regular local elections. Particularly in councils that are elected by thirds - do they go with the previous election, or the one where the resigning/deceased councillor was elected? The question might prove even more problematic in councils elected by thirds where some wards have fewer than three councillors. I think the most sensible options are either to keep them where they are, to have a separate by-elections page for each authority (or at least the ones that elect by thirds), or to have them on pages for the individual wards (where those pages exist). Bouncelot (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The same principle for the by-election would apply on by-third councils i.e. by-elections between May 2007 and May 2008 would by on the 2007 page and by-elections between May 2008 and May 2010 on the 2010 page, etc. It's what I have started doing on the Carlisle local elections pages, although I have still got 2008 onwards to do. This keeps everything in chronological order, while the summary on the main page keeps them together with just one click to any particular by-election the reader want to see more detail for.

The problem with by-elections as they are, is that it is just not sustainable. When pages such as South Somerset local elections have by-elections taking up most of the page already (and this is not one of the worst such pages and it may need by-elections after 2009 adding - I haven't checked), think what they will be like in 5 or 10 years with more by-elections still. Policy - WP:NOTSTATS - says that "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." and I can't see how creating a separate page just for by-elections would avoid this problem - apart from creating another 200 pages, which I don't think those who already are not enthusiastic about having council elections on wikipedia would let happen. Having the by-elections split between the different pages stops this problem, while the summary keeps the info together. Davewild (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The other issue with by-elections at council level is keeping up with them. How many by-election results are added to their "core" council pages every week or month? Could this be carried out all the time, by the number of editors we have today? Maybe this is something for that dreaded word - "compromise". If there's enough by-election results to fit on the local elections 'core' page they can stay, otherwise put them in the relevant year. Separate pages won't be viable unless we can give the wider community a guarantee that the results are thorough and uptodate, never mind notable doktorb _words^deeds 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for the WP:MAINPAGE for 24 December, the 3rd anniversary of his death. Comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests would be appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Morning all

An American user has developed a new election box template for PR elections (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCary/SampleRcvResults). Could this be adapted for the UK? Could it be worth having a look into adapting it to fit, say, the Police Commissioner elections next year? doktorb _words^deeds 05:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are already some STV election templates out there: see Category:STV election infobox templates, and Cork South–Central (Dáil Éireann constituency)#Elections for an example of their use; and I think these are better than in the "Vote counts by round" section in the example you show. But the summary one at the top might be a good idea and the templates can probably be used without any adaptation. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We have articles on Government of England, Government of Scotland, Government of Wales, and Government of Northern Ireland. It seems to me that those articles (certainly the ones for Scotland, Wales and NI for which other, better, articles clearly exist - England is a special case in government terms) don't really serve a very useful purpose, can be misleading, and would be better as disambiguation pages with the content stripped out. What do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be worth exploring the idea of merging the Scottish and Welsh articles into their respective assembly articles. Norn Iron is always a harder case to discuss, I am minded to leave "as is". doktorb _words^deeds 16:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles do mention the historical development of current government arrangements, which is why I suggested disamb rather than a simple merge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Prior to 1998 Wales certainly had the Welsh Office and a Minister for Wales in the UK government. In previous centuries the region was monitored by strategically placed lords and before that the Welsh Princes, wasn't it? I agree Government of Wales could survive as an article in its own right, though currently its intro in its current wording suggests a merger. Sionk (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Afternoon.

I am typing this question in a number of different locations to help measure opinion. As you may know, next year should see the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012. There will be over 40 concurrent elections in each of the Constabulary areas, with the potential for numerous candidates and the fun and games associated with using STV as a voting system.

I want to know how people feel about the election coverage. I have two options in my mind, and want to ask people how we should work on the forthcoming elections.

Option A would be keeping ALL 40+ election results on the same page. This would reduce the amount space used for British elections, reduce the likelihood of AfD discussions amongst the wider community on notability grounds, enable a co-ordination effort for the elections project, and enable editors to enhance their working knowledge on how to election results boxes, source material etc. It would be a very long article, require intense concentration to reduce confusion and enhance clarity, be open to sidetracking conversations about article splitting.

Option B would be starting individual articles for each Constabulary election. These would be easy to watch via bookmarks and watchlist, enable editors to focus on areas they know better than others, enhance the space available for each candidate's profile etc if required, and allow for a greater coverage for the contests in specific electoral areas. However they would be very difficult to watch all 40 at the height of the election period. It would also attract coordinated vandalism.

We have just under a year to decide, though in real terms, the May election period is going to be a nightmare anyway (and that's without tying to keep up to date with the Boundary changes).

Any feedback or ideas?

doktorb _words^deeds 12:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest leaning towards an Option C of starting with one main article and breaking out individual articles where that particular election attracts significant extra coverage (for example from some high profile candidates) and thus warrants a separate article so we can cover it properly. At this stage we don't know how much coverage these elections will be getting in sources (such as newspapers, BBC etc.), but I think it pretty certain that some of these elections are going to get more coverage than others. The main article can still summarise the full candidate list and election results for all the elections, while sub-articles can add more where required. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. That kind of Option C has been suggested elsewhere. Could be the way to go, I'll wait to see what other ideas we get doktorb _words^deeds 17:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this option C is a good idea. Maybe a good way to avoid sidetracking conversations about article splitting would be to put a FAQ notice on the talk page that states when a constabulary area election should be split off, based on any consensus garnered here. Zangar (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Some articles, including Her Majesty's Government frontbench, Official Opposition frontbench, and the series of "Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team" articles, use "frontbench" instead of "front bench" Google reports an overwhelming majority in favour of the latter, but I don't know whether to put any stock in that. In the case of the Lib Dems, does it matter that it is being used as an adjective? Also, is there any reason for the f and t to be capitalised for the Lib Dem articles? I can't see one since "Liberal Democrat Frontbench (or Front Bench) Team" does not seem to have been an official name. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I simply wanted to point out that the picture of Robert Hart in Chinese dress is reversed. I can see that from the characters printed in the top left corner - they're backwards. It also puts his robe on the wrong way. I hope that you can redress this. Thank you. Elbeejay (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody familiar with misrepresentation, libel, etc. comment at Talk:John Beddington#Fukushima incident please? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that several topics concerning Scotland's constitutional position are in dire need of updating. Ask for a general review - particularly because Scotland is at a time of massive constitutional uncertainty and people will be trying to look stuff up. Example "Constitution for a free Scotland" is all about a 2002 document published by the Scottish National Party. This was superseded by the 2011 document of the same name which was published by the non-partisan public body, the constitutional committee. Having an outdated proposed constitution, and at a time of national transformation/(or not) is a pretty scary failing, but it's not the only one, I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jistaface (talk • contribs) 10:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, would you be able to provide a list below of articles that need updating please? Just to make it easier for editors of this project to target any work. You can always tag the offending articles with the ((update)) template to help alert other editors. Also you may want to notify WikiProject Scotland over this matter, as they no doubt have a editors with specific knowledge in this area. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)